Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Fri, 21 February 1997 23:36 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id SAA15334 for ipsec-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:36:11 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: kent@po1.bbn.com (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v03007803af33acd6a8df@[128.33.229.242]>
In-Reply-To: <199702192113.NAA00756@imo.plaintalk.bellevue.wa.us>
References: <199702191959.LAA10030@fluffy.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:53:02 -0500
To: dennis.glatting@plaintalk.bellevue.wa.us
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

Dennis,

	This discussion has been taking place entirely in the context of an
optional transformation, negotiated during SA establishment.  There is no
intent to make use of compression mandatory.  If we decide to include it as
an option, one would negotiate a specific compression algorithm in
conjunction with a sp[ecific encryption algorithm.  There is a separate
issue of whether it would be mandatory to inplement this option as part of
a compliant ESP implementation, but we have not yet had that debate.

Steve